Save Article

CueCat Fails to Meet Its Promise
Of Being Convenient and Useful

By

Walter S. Mossberg

Updated Oct. 12, 2000 12:01 a.m. ET

JUST BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY makes something possible, that doesn't automatically mean it's beneficial or convenient for people to use. The annals of technology are filled with seemingly clever inventions that never became a regular part of people's lives.

The latest invention to test this principle is a little computer gizmo called the CueCat. The product of DigitalConvergence, a Dallas company with powerful backers, the CueCat is a small handheld scanner that plugs into your PC and reads bar codes. The scanner, shaped like a cat, can read the bar codes on products as well as a new type of bar code, called a cue, that is meant to be printed alongside ads and articles in newspapers, magazines and catalogs.

When you scan these codes into your PC, the CueCat sends you to a related Web page. Of course, most products and ads, and many articles, already contain the addresses of relevant Web pages. But DigitalConvergence claims these are hard to type in, and that in any case, they are often too general. By contrast, the company says, the CueCat can quickly whisk you to precisely relevant sites.

THIS IS ALL designed to help print publishers and their advertisers make a direct connection to the Web. That's why the company is backed by Radio Shack, Forbes magazine, the Dallas Morning News, Coca-Cola and others. Radio Shack has been handing out free CueCats in its stores, and Forbes has mailed the gizmos free to its subscribers.

I decided to test the digital feline to see if it met the twin standards of usefulness and convenience. Immediately, I ran into the biggest problem with the CueCat. In order to scan in codes from magazines and newspapers, you have to be reading them in front of your PC. That's unnatural and ridiculous. Who does their leisure reading sitting in front of a PC? How many people have their PC next to the easy chair, or bed, or other typical reading sites?

So, on the first standard, convenience, the CueCat fails miserably. Using it is just unnatural.

What about the second of the twin standards, usefulness? After all, if the CueCat really did work faster than typing, and if it really did take you to highly valuable Web pages, maybe it would be worth carrying piles of magazines to the PC for scanning. Alas, in my tests, the CueCat flunked this second test as well.

I tried the CueCat on 10 different product labels from the shelves in my home, and on 15 articles and ads in Forbes, Wired and Parade magazines, and in Radio Shack's catalog and ads. I expected to find Web pages with really interesting information on just the narrow topic of an article or ad, perhaps offers of big discounts or the like.

But nearly every Web page the CueCat called up for me was general and useless. And in more than a few cases, the printed Web address in the article or ad led to a more relevant page than the scan did. Not only that, but it usually took so much rubbing and dragging to get the scanner to read the codes, that in many cases I could have typed in the Web address more quickly.

IN A MAZDA AD in Wired, for example, after nine swipes of the CueCat, I was taken to exactly the same Web page that the printed address called up. And a scan of a Smith Barney ad in Forbes led to a page I judged to be less useful than the one yielded by the printed Web address. The product scans were worse. The bar code on a bottle of vitamins led to a general page for the manufacturer. The printed address led to a specific vitamin page.

There were a few exceptions. Radio Shack made very good use of the cues, taking you to relevant product-information pages, and allowing you to order items online. And a cue in an article in Wired about fog led to a very relevant Web site whose address was too long to easily remember or type.

In the Dallas Morning News the same pattern prevailed. A few cues were relevant and useful, such as one that took you to a Web site from which you could submit a letter to the editor. But most led to very general Web pages on article topics.

On top of all that, there have also been accusations that the CueCat violates privacy because it transmits a unique code with every scan, identifying users by age, gender and zip code. The company uses this information to prepare usage reports for its corporate clients.

DigitalConvergence says it employs encryption and other safeguards to assure that this code can never be linked to your actual name or e-mail address, so you can never be tracked or identified.

If you have a question you want answered, or any other comment or suggestion about Walter S. Mossberg's column, please send e-mail to mossberg@wsj.com

My conclusion is that for now, the CueCat isn't worth installing and using, even though it's available free of charge. But things may change as time goes on. For one thing, the convenience problem is being attacked with the introduction over the next few months of portable scanners. These are disguised as pens or key fobs. You can use them to store the codes you scan while reading away from the PC, and then visit the sites later when you get to your computer.

These new devices cost from $30 to $100. The company suggests they'll be worth it because its partners will gradually get much better at providing really specific and useful information and offers on the Web.

We'll see.

For a look at the new Apple Cube computer, recordable CDs and PDAs, check out my Mossberg's Mailbox column in Tech Center.